← All Phrases

“cross objection”

AppealsSection 253(4)Section 253(4)4,331 judgments

The decision most relied on for cross objection is Sanjay Sawhney v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (116 Taxmann.com 701), cited in 87 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on cross objection

Sanjay Sawhney v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax
116 Taxmann.com 701 · 2020 · High Court
87
citing judgments

Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules allows a respondent to defend a favourable order of the CIT(A) by raising grounds decided against them, even without filing an appeal or cross-objection. Such issues can be raised orally and for the first time before the Tribunal.

DCIT v. Turquoise Investment & Finance Ltd.
378 ITR 693 · 2015 · High Court
68
citing judgments

An appellate authority can admit additional grounds of appeal, especially when they are legal in nature, and allows for filing cross-objections before the Tribunal where facts are on record.

Pr. CIT v. Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd.
86 Taxmann.com 148 · 2017 · High Court
54
citing judgments

A respondent in an appeal before the Tribunal can support the order appealed against on any grounds decided against them, even without filing a cross-objection, under Rule 27 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules.

Peter Vaz v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Bangalore
128 Taxmann.com 180 · 2021 · High Court
34
citing judgments

An assessee can raise an objection regarding the validity of the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction for reopening a concluded assessment even if the issue was not raised before the CIT(Appeals), by invoking Rule 27 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. This is permissible if the issue is ancillary to the main issue and does not require additional evidence.

Dahod Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd. v. CIT
282 ITR 321 · 2006 · High Court
31
citing judgments

An assessee-respondent can support an appellate order on any ground available to them, even if they haven't filed cross-objections, provided the new ground is a point of law and doesn't require fresh evidence.

Mavany Brothers v. CIT, Panjim
62 Taxmann.com 50 · 2015 · High Court
25
citing judgments

A delay in filing cross-objections can be condoned if there are bonafide reasons and no mala-fide conduct or lackadaisical approach by the assessee.

CIT v. New India Assurance Company Ltd.
234 ITR 663 · 1998 · High Court
23
citing judgments

A cross objection filed by an assessee against an order of the CIT(A) can be considered as an appeal by the assessee.

CIT(E) v. Jamiatul Banaat Tankaria
168 Taxmann.com 35 · 2024 · High Court
20
citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions) cannot invoke Section 13(1)(b) at the stage of granting registration under Section 12AB, especially when the assessee has a valid registration. Section 13(1)(b) is only attracted after the assessee has crossed the hurdle of being eligible for exemption under Section 11 by obtaining registration.

Judgments citing cross objection

Income Tax Officer, Pune vs. Vishwakarmasarkshankamgarsahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 451/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.450 & 451/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years:2017-18 &2018-19 The Income Tax Officer, V Vishwakarma Sarkshan Pune. S Kamgar Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, 185, Vishwakarma Bhuwan, Shaniwar Peth, Pune – 411030 Pan: Aaajv0492M Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Cross Objection Nos.23 & 24/Pun/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.450 & 451/Pun/2024) िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Vishwakarma Sarkshan V The Income Tax Kamgar Sahakari Patsanstha S Officer, Maryadit, 185, Vishwakarma Pune. Bhuwan, Shaniwar Peth, Pune – 411030 Pan: Aaajv0492M Appellant/ Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By Shri S.N.Puranikh – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 07/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09/08/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: The Revenue Has Filed Two Appeals For Two Separate Assessment Years I.E.2017-18 & 2018-19 Against Two Separate Orders Of

Section 250Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Officer, V Vishwakarma Sarkshan Pune. s Kamgar Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, 185, Vishwakarma Bhuwan, Shaniwar Peth, Pune – 411030 PAN: AAAJV0492M Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Cross Objection Nos.23 & 24/PUN/2024 (arising out of ITA Nos.450 & 451/PUN/2024) िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Vishwakarma Sarkshan V The Income Tax Kamgar Sahakari Patsanstha ... ld.Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals)[NFAC], both dated 06.12.2023 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee has filed two cross objection in C.O.No.23/PUN/2024 and C.O.No.24/PUN/2024 to support order of the ld.CIT(A)[NFAC]. The Revenue in ITA No.450/PUN/2024 for A.Y.2017-18 has raised

Income Tax Officer, Pune vs. Vishwakarma Sarkshan Kamgar Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 450/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.450 & 451/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years:2017-18 &2018-19 The Income Tax Officer, V Vishwakarma Sarkshan Pune. S Kamgar Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, 185, Vishwakarma Bhuwan, Shaniwar Peth, Pune – 411030 Pan: Aaajv0492M Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Cross Objection Nos.23 & 24/Pun/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.450 & 451/Pun/2024) िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Vishwakarma Sarkshan V The Income Tax Kamgar Sahakari Patsanstha S Officer, Maryadit, 185, Vishwakarma Pune. Bhuwan, Shaniwar Peth, Pune – 411030 Pan: Aaajv0492M Appellant/ Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By Shri S.N.Puranikh – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 07/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09/08/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: The Revenue Has Filed Two Appeals For Two Separate Assessment Years I.E.2017-18 & 2018-19 Against Two Separate Orders Of

Section 250Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Officer, V Vishwakarma Sarkshan Pune. s Kamgar Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, 185, Vishwakarma Bhuwan, Shaniwar Peth, Pune – 411030 PAN: AAAJV0492M Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Cross Objection Nos.23 & 24/PUN/2024 (arising out of ITA Nos.450 & 451/PUN/2024) िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Vishwakarma Sarkshan V The Income Tax Kamgar Sahakari Patsanstha ... ld.Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals)[NFAC], both dated 06.12.2023 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee has filed two cross objection in C.O.No.23/PUN/2024 and C.O.No.24/PUN/2024 to support order of the ld.CIT(A)[NFAC]. The Revenue in ITA No.450/PUN/2024 for A.Y.2017-18 has raised

DCIT, Corporate Circle - 1 (1), Chennai vs. M/S. Accel Ltd., Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2169/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1910, 2167, 2168 & 2169/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 & C.O. No. 4/Chny/2020 [In Ita No. 2167/Chny/2019 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Accel Limited, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), No. 75, Nelson Manickam Road, Chennai 600 034. Aminjikarai, Chennai 600 029. [Pan: Aaaca3042P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) Department By : Shri G. Suresh, Jcit Assessee By : None सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Appeals Filed By The Department Are Directed Against Two Different Orders Both Dated 29.03.2019 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Nor Filed Any Application Seeking Adjournment. Thus, The Assessee Called Absent & Treated Exparte.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh, JCIT
Section 143(2)

Nos.1910 & 2167-2169/Chny/19 & C.O. No. 4/Chny/20 C.O. No. 4/Chny/Chny/2020 [Arising out of I.T.A. No. 2167/Chny/2019: AY 2012-13] 35. The assessee filed the Cross Objection with a delay of 25 days. The assessee filed an affidavit stating reasons for the said delay and prayed for condonation of that delay ... that the reasons explained by the assessee are bonafide and therefore, the delay is condoned. 36. We note that the grounds raised in the Cross Objections are in support of the order of the ld. CIT(A). Since we have confirmed the order

DCIT, Corporate Circle - 1 (1), Chennai vs. M/S. Accel Ltd., Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2168/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1910, 2167, 2168 & 2169/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 & C.O. No. 4/Chny/2020 [In Ita No. 2167/Chny/2019 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Accel Limited, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), No. 75, Nelson Manickam Road, Chennai 600 034. Aminjikarai, Chennai 600 029. [Pan: Aaaca3042P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) Department By : Shri G. Suresh, Jcit Assessee By : None सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Appeals Filed By The Department Are Directed Against Two Different Orders Both Dated 29.03.2019 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Nor Filed Any Application Seeking Adjournment. Thus, The Assessee Called Absent & Treated Exparte.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh, JCIT
Section 143(2)

Nos.1910 & 2167-2169/Chny/19 & C.O. No. 4/Chny/20 C.O. No. 4/Chny/Chny/2020 [Arising out of I.T.A. No. 2167/Chny/2019: AY 2012-13] 35. The assessee filed the Cross Objection with a delay of 25 days. The assessee filed an affidavit stating reasons for the said delay and prayed for condonation of that delay ... that the reasons explained by the assessee are bonafide and therefore, the delay is condoned. 36. We note that the grounds raised in the Cross Objections are in support of the order of the ld. CIT(A). Since we have confirmed the order

DCIT, Corporate Circle - 1 (1), Chennai vs. M/S. Accel Ltd., Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2167/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1910, 2167, 2168 & 2169/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 & C.O. No. 4/Chny/2020 [In Ita No. 2167/Chny/2019 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Accel Limited, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), No. 75, Nelson Manickam Road, Chennai 600 034. Aminjikarai, Chennai 600 029. [Pan: Aaaca3042P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) Department By : Shri G. Suresh, Jcit Assessee By : None सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Appeals Filed By The Department Are Directed Against Two Different Orders Both Dated 29.03.2019 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Nor Filed Any Application Seeking Adjournment. Thus, The Assessee Called Absent & Treated Exparte.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh, JCIT
Section 143(2)

Nos.1910 & 2167-2169/Chny/19 & C.O. No. 4/Chny/20 C.O. No. 4/Chny/Chny/2020 [Arising out of I.T.A. No. 2167/Chny/2019: AY 2012-13] 35. The assessee filed the Cross Objection with a delay of 25 days. The assessee filed an affidavit stating reasons for the said delay and prayed for condonation of that delay ... that the reasons explained by the assessee are bonafide and therefore, the delay is condoned. 36. We note that the grounds raised in the Cross Objections are in support of the order of the ld. CIT(A). Since we have confirmed the order

DCIT, Chennai vs. Accel Limited, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1910/CHNY/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Aug 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1910, 2167, 2168 & 2169/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 & C.O. No. 4/Chny/2020 [In Ita No. 2167/Chny/2019 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Accel Limited, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), No. 75, Nelson Manickam Road, Chennai 600 034. Aminjikarai, Chennai 600 029. [Pan: Aaaca3042P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) Department By : Shri G. Suresh, Jcit Assessee By : None सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Appeals Filed By The Department Are Directed Against Two Different Orders Both Dated 29.03.2019 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Nor Filed Any Application Seeking Adjournment. Thus, The Assessee Called Absent & Treated Exparte.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh, JCIT
Section 143(2)

Nos.1910 & 2167-2169/Chny/19 & C.O. No. 4/Chny/20 C.O. No. 4/Chny/Chny/2020 [Arising out of I.T.A. No. 2167/Chny/2019: AY 2012-13] 35. The assessee filed the Cross Objection with a delay of 25 days. The assessee filed an affidavit stating reasons for the said delay and prayed for condonation of that delay ... that the reasons explained by the assessee are bonafide and therefore, the delay is condoned. 36. We note that the grounds raised in the Cross Objections are in support of the order of the ld. CIT(A). Since we have confirmed the order